• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands? I mean, it is a lousy island with 3000 inhabitants and half a million sheep, and they live of fishing, wool, and day tourism from cruise ships.

    On the one hand, maintaining a military presence equivalent to more than half the number of native inhabitants costs the British a shitload of money. On the other hand, starting another bloody war with the UK in the middle of an economic catastrophe over a piece of rock with sheep does not make any sense for Argentina, either.

    • LKPU26@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Falklands nascent oil industry + giving the population a rallying cry to distract from poor economic conditions.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.

        I should have excluded pure rhetorics as a reason. The Chinese at least had a good economic reason to get Hong Kong into their hands.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.

          Don’t mean to be rude, but you could also just not have been educated on the matter, and its actually more important than you think, especially to those who claim ownership for the oil rights reasons.

          Usually world politics, when it comes to oil access/ownership, is not something that is discussed in the open, often. We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that news stations will ever report on that fact.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil,

            While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil,

              While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence

              It’s actually been stated officially during reporter questioning actually, multiple times throughout the years. It’s just not something you see discussed much on CNN directly.

              Don’t mean to be rude (in case you’re not a bot) but it takes a special kind of ignorance to believe that oil has nothing to do with what’s going on in the Middle East. It’s not the only factor, but it’s definitely a factor.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oil dictates our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but is not tied to overall ME policy, and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.

                Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember “no blood for oil” protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.

                Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.

                  As I’ve mentioned previously, during official news conferences officials have stated the need to protect the oil supply and the access to it.

                  Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember “no blood for oil” protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.

                  As someone who is also old enough to remember those kind of protests, and the embargos, etc., I agree. Fighting over resources is not healthy, and that resources should be shared instead.

                  Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed

                  Its not a conspiracy theory, its what drives the politics in the ME, on multiple levels. And its not my theory, its what the majority of people have decided on (the importance of oil).

          • Herbal Gamer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that new stations will ever report on that fact.

            Oh everybody knows that

          • Treczoks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            OK, looks like there is actually serious amounts of oil there. But quite deep and under water. Still, worth more than all of the island wrapped up as a present ;-) TIL.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Its really crazy how that stuff works. I read an article once about how nations try to claim even the smallest piece of rock in places just so that they can have claim over the resources not on land itself but in the ocean around it. Has to do with some UN treaties/rules about resource availability/ownership.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands?

      Oil in the nearby ocean ownership is the reason why.

      Its the way international treaties work as far as claiming ownership of resources in the ocean.